CATALINA MARKETING: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April----------------------------------------------------------------The District Court for the Middle District of Florida will hold a fairness hearing on April 26, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $8,500,000.00 settlement in the matter, "In Re Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM."

The hearing will be held before Judge James D. Whittemore of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Courtroom 13B, Tampa, Florida.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased the common stock of Catalina Marketing Corp. between Oct. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003.

Case Background

Numerous complaints purporting to be class actions were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 17, 2002 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.

The complaints contain various allegations, including that, during the alleged class period, the defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning the company's business and operations with the result of artificially inflating the company's share price and maintained inadequate internal controls. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida as, "In re Catalina Marketing Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03- CV-1582-T-27TBM."

Named as co-lead plaintiffs in December 2003 are:

-- Virginia P. Anderson, and -- the Alaska Electric Pension Fund

On June 21, 2004, they served their consolidated amended class action complaint on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Aug. 14, 1999 and Aug. 25, 2003, inclusive.

The company and other defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint which motion was denied by the court on March 31, 2005. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in May 2005, which was subsequently granted, by the court on Feb. 16, 2006.

The suit is "Corwin, et al. v. Catalina Marketing, et al., Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D. Whittemore.

CEMEX SAB: U.S. Files Antitrust Suit Over $12B Bid for Rinker-------------------------------------------------------------Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. faces a purported antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that seeks to prevent it from buying Rinker Group Ltd. in a $12 billion hostile bid.

The offer was due to expire on March 30, 2007, but Cemex extended it until April 27, 2007.

According the complaint, the civil antitrust action was filed on April 4 by the U.S. government, acting under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General.

The case, which is seeking equitable and other relief, generally alleges that the company's proposed acquisition of Rinker would reduce the number of significant suppliers of ready mix concrete in various metropolitan areas in Florida and Arizona, of concrete block in several metropolitan areas in Florida, and of aggregate in Tucson, Arizona.

The complaint states that the proposed acquisition of Rinker by Cemex would substantially lessen competition and tends to create a monopoly in interstate trade and commerce in violation of the Clayton Act.

It further states that unless unrestrained, the transaction will have the following anticompetitive effects:

-- actual and potential competition between Cemex and Rinker in the production of ready mix concrete, concrete block, and aggregate in the relevant geographic markets will be eliminated;

-- competition generally in the production of ready mix concrete, concrete block, and aggregate in the relevant geographic markets will be substantially lessened; and

-- CEMEX proposed acquisition of Rinker be adjudged and decreed to be unlawful and in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act;

-- defendant and all persons acting on its behalf be permanently enjoined and restrained from consummating the proposed acquisition or from entering into or carrying out any contract agreement, plan, or understanding, the effect of which would be to combine Cemex with the operations of Rinker;

-- they be awarded its costs for this action; and

-- they receive such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

CHARLIE BROWN: Recalls Olives on Possible Contamination-------------------------------------------------------Charlie Brown di Rutigliano & Figli S.r.l, of Bari Italy, is recalling Cerignola Olives, Nocellara Olives and Castelvetrano Olives from distribution because they have the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can cause a life-threatening illness or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The recalled olives were distributed to wholesalers, who then distributed them nationally to restaurants and retail stores.

This recall covers all sizes of cans, glass jars and pouches of Cerignola Olives, Nocerella Olives and Castelvetrano Olives containing codes beginning with the letter "G" followed by 3 or 4 digits under the following brands: Borrelli, Bonta di Puglia, Cento, Corrado's, Dal Raccolto, Flora, Roland and Vantia.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing found that the product had a higher than required pH.

In response to these findings, the firm has amended its process to assure new product meets pH requirements.

Consumers who have purchased these types of olives are urged to visit their retailer to determine if the olives are from Charlie Brown di Rutigliano & Figli S.r.l. If they are the recalled products a full refund will be given.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 011-039-080-7839073 (phone), or E-mail: charliebrownbari@yahoo.com.

CHECK POINT: June 6 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on June 6, 2007 at 2:15 p.m. for a proposed $13 million settlement in the class action, "In Re: Check Point Software Securities Litigation, Case 1:03-cv-06594-RMB-DFE."

The hearing will be held before Judge Richard M. Berman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312 Courtroom 14A.

Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before May 17.

Case Background

Beginning on Aug. 29, 2003, the company received a number of class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by holders of its ordinary shares, alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws.

On Jan. 14, 2004, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of ordinary shares between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002.

The complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of its senior officers made misrepresentations and omissions regarding, among other things, sales and future prospects.

The company retained counsel and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2005 the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss but permitted the lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the defects in the dismissed complaint.

On Sept. 2, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On April 25, 2006, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the company reached an agreement-in-principle with the lead plaintiffs to settle this matter. The company expects that its insurance carrier will pay the $13 million settlement, which is subject to the completion of appropriate documentation and to court approval.

Also on Dec. 20, 2006, the lead plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice the senior officers named as defendants in the lawsuit, according to the company's March 15 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Check Point Software Securities Litigation, Case 1:03-cv-06594-RMB-DFE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman with referral to Judge Douglas F. Eaton.

CIGNA CORP: April Hearing Set in $93M Securities Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold on April 27, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. a hearing in the $93 million settlement of the class action "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-08088-MMB."

The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased Cigna Corp. common stock between Nov. 2, 2001 and Oct. 24, 2002, inclusive.

The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of Judge Michael M. Baylson.

Deadline to file for exclusion was April 9, 2007. Deadline to file claims is May 29, 2007.

In 2002, CIGNA and some of its officers and directors faced numerous securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaints charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market.

According to the complaint, the company issued numerous press releases, and filed financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, regarding its performance during the class period which represented that the company was experiencing strong growth, that its operating income for 2002 is expected to be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its discontinued reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to its liquidity.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that CIGNA had been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations, particularly for its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death benefits, by (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars.

In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were materially false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing declining demand for its offerings, particularly in its Employee Health Care, Life and Disability segment, and its income guidance for 2002 was lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

The complaint also alleges the defendants failed to disclose computer integration problems and customer service problems within the company's Health Care, Life and Disability segments that forced CIGNA to grant substantial margin concessions in order to retain aggrieved customers causing the company to revise third quarter and full year 2002 earnings estimates.

The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct alleged therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on Oct. 16, 2002 did issue $250 million of 6-3/8% notes and that the offering would have been negatively affected if the truth regarding CIGNA's business and financial condition was known.

In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System, Attorney General Tom Corbett, and governor's general counsel, Barbara Adams, announced a $93 million settlement on behalf of a class of all purchasers of the common stock of CIGNA Corp. from Nov. 2, 2001 through Oct. 24, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2006).

The Retirement System served as lead plaintiff in the suit and vigorously prosecuted this case for the benefit of the class during the past four years.

The suit is "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-08088-MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M. Baylson.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Award in Calif. Labor Litigation----------------------------------------------------------Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing a $5,304 award to plaintiffs in the class action, "Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. RG-04150447," which was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda.

The overtime compensation case was certified as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco's semi-annual bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive overtime pay.

In December 2006, a judgment in the amount of $5,304 was entered in favor of the class. The company is appealing, according to the company's March 30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 18.

Generally, the suits are alleging that defendants have been overcharging drivers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Calif. Labor Suit Settlement Hearing Set May--------------------------------------------------------------A May 2007 final fairness hearing is scheduled for a tentative settlement in the matter, "Kevin Doty and Sarah Doty v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV-05-3241 FMC (JWJ)," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco did not properly compensate and record hours worked by employees and failed to provide meal and rest breaks.

On Dec. 11, 2006, the court tentatively approved a $7,500 settlement. A hearing is scheduled for May 2007 to consider final approval of the settlement, according to the company's March 30 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 18.

The suit is "Kevin Doty et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al. Case No. 2:05-cv-03241-FMC-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Florence-Marie Cooper with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Still Faces Suits Over Membership Procedures--------------------------------------------------------------Costco Wholesale Corp. remains a defendant in putative class actions brought on behalf of certain present and former Costco members in state courts in California and New York.

-- "Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. BC351869, (commenced in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California);" and

-- "Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No. 06-007555, (commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New York and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York)."

In "Barmak" it is asserted that the company violated various provisions of the common law and California statutes in connection with its former practice of paying executive members who downgraded or terminated their memberships a 2% reward for less than 12 months of eligible purchases.

The company removed the case to federal district court, where proceedings are pending on whether the action should be remanded to state court.

The company also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the challenged practice, while it was still in effect, was appropriately disclosed to executive members.

Counsel for the plaintiff in "Barmak" has also sent a letter purporting to invoke consumer protection statutes in Massachusetts and Texas.

In "Evans" and "Dupler" it is asserted that the company violated various provisions of California and New York common law and statutes in connection with a certain membership renewal practice.

Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late generally have their 12-month membership renewal periods commence at the time of the prior year's expiration rather than the time of the late payment.

The suit was filed by New Jersey attorney Steven Weisbrot on behalf of a Philadelphia woman who claims the company charges clients interest rates in excess of 2000% annual percentage rate. It seeks to recover millions of dollars in illegal interest and to halt the allegedly unlawful loans, according to Consumer Affairs.

EIGHT IN ONE: Recalls Jerky Treats on Risk of Contamination-----------------------------------------------------------Eight In One, Inc., a division of United Pet Group, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is voluntarily recalling nationally all lots of Dingo CHICK'N JERKY treats due to concerns that the jerky treats have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, which can cause serious infections in dogs and cats, and, if there is cross contamination, in people, especially children, the aged, and people with compromised immune systems.

The products affected were sold at Target, PetSmart and other retailers. The products subject to this voluntary recall are Dingo CHICK'N JERKY 3.5 oz. and 8 oz. for dogs and Dingo Kitty CHICKEN JERKY 1.5 oz. for cats and Dingo Ferret CHICKEN JERKY 1.5 oz for ferrets.

Laboratory testing has shown that some samples of these chicken jerky treats were contaminated with Salmonella. The company is recalling all these products out of an abundance of caution.

Salmonella can potentially be transferred to people handling these pet treats, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella can have some or all of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Apparently well animals can be a carrier and infect other animals or humans. Pet owners whose pets have consumed the recalled product and the pets have these symptoms are advised to contact their veterinarians.

The company has received one report of Salmonellosis in a dog. There are no reports of human illness.

These products are being removed from retail stores. Consumers should immediately stop feeding these treats to their pets.

Consumers who purchased any of the above-identified CHICK'N JERKY TREATS should discontinue use of the products and should discard the unused portion.

Consumers can obtain information on receiving refunds by contacting the Eight In One consumer affairs department at 1-888-232-9889.

EQUITABLE LIFE: Ruling in Suit Over Child Rider Premium Vacated---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated a judgment in a suit filed by Shirley Ring regarding billing for the premium for child term rider insurance offered by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S. and its parent company AXA Financial, Inc.

A unanimous decision written by Judge Pooler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on April states that the practice may be a deceptive business practice under the law of New York after the policy ceases to provide coverage because the child or youngest child has reached age 25.

It means owners of life insurance policies with a children's term rider may have a claim for deceptive practices under New York law if the insurance company continues to bill for the premium including for the Child Rider after the youngest reaches age 25 and is no longer "a child" within the meaning of the policy.

The plaintiff, Ms. Ring, and the class of premium payers are represented by Joshua N. Rose of Rose & Rose, P.C., a Washington, D.C.-based law firm. Rose & Rose received a favorable ruling in November 2006 from the New York State Appellate Division concerning a similar claim against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Ms. Ring claims the child rider premium violates New York consumer protection law under General Business Law 349. Equitable moved to dismiss the state law claims as completely pre-empted by federal law, namely the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

The question was whether the Children's Term Rider that is not by itself a "covered security" becomes one, and thus is subject to removal and dismissal under the SLUSA, because it is attached to a variable life insurance policy under the definition of a "covered security." The appellate court ruled that the Children's Term Rider and the policy it was attached to must be considered separately, as opposed to the district court, which analyzed them together.

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to send the case to the New York County Supreme Court.

GRANDVIEW MEMORIAL: Cemetery in Madison, Ind. May Face Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------- Two southern Indiana families whose relatives are buried at the Grandview Memorial Gardens, a 40-acre cemetery north of Madison, plan to file a class action, according to WAVE 3.

The families had asked the operator of Grandview Memorial Gardens to exhume the remains of their relatives after hearing dozens of complaints about flooded crypts. They requested to remove their relatives' caskets, which were found to have been filled with water.

Meanwhile, the Indiana attorney general's office is investigating alleged irregularities at the cemetery after state cemetery regulators received complaints about the alleged misuse of money paid by families for burial plots, vaults and grave markers.

HILL'S PET: Recalls Canned Pet Food Manufactured by Menu Foods --------------------------------------------------------------Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. announces a voluntary precautionary recall in the U.S. and Canada of a very small number of canned cat products that are co-manufactured by Menu Foods, Inc., in response to the recent Menu Foods nationwide recall of wet pet foods.

Hill's is voluntarily recalling these products:

-- Science Diet Kitten Savory Cuts Ocean Fish 3 oz. and 5.5 oz.

-- Science Diet Feline Adult Savory Cuts Beef 5.5 oz.

-- Science Diet Feline Adult Savory Cuts Chicken 5.5 oz.

-- Science Diet Feline Adult Savory Cuts Ocean Fish 5.5 oz.

-- Science Diet Feline Senior Savory Cuts Chicken 5.5 oz.

No other Hill's products are affected by this recall.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., is taking this precautionary step to protect the health and well being of pets. Hill's has received no reported cases of illness. Consumers of other pet food brands manufactured by Menu Foods have reported a small number of cases of cats becoming ill with loss of appetite, vomiting, and lethargy which are potential signs of kidney failure.

Hill's is recalling these product codes. Product codes can be found at the bottom of the can. Only relevant code numbers have been listed ('X's indicate irrelevant numbers).

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., has informed the Food and Drug Administration and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on this issue. The company regrets any inconvenience to its consumers, retail customers and veterinarians.

This voluntary product recall involves discontinuation of all retail sales and product retrieval from consumers. Consumers should stop using the affected products immediately. Consult with a veterinarian if any symptoms are present in pet. All Science Diet products carry a 100 percent guarantee, and consumers can receive a refund for recalled products.

For more information, consumers can contact the company at 1-800-445-5777 or visit http://www.HillsPet.comfor details.

HOMEBANC CORP: Denied Summary Judgment in Fla. Labor Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley denied summary judgment requests by HomeBanc Corp. and Patrick S. Flood, the company's founder and former chief executive, but granted partial summary judgment on one employees' request in how their jobs are classified, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Fiver former employees of HomeBanc sued the company last year, alleging the Atlanta-based mortgage company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. They claim the company owes them millions in overtime pay.

HomeBanc is also facing a lawsuit filed by 136 former HomeBanc loan officers before a federal judge in Middle Florida.

The plaintiffs in the HomeBanc cases are seeking class-action status, according to the report.

If HomeBanc loses the cases, the overtime and salary owed for a three-year period going back to February 2003 could be in the range of $40 million to $100 million, depending upon the final size of the class of plaintiffs, according to E. Nannette Piccolo, the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., attorney representing the workers.

In their lawsuits, the former loan officers allege they routinely put in upward of 60, 70 and even 90-hour workweeks with no overtime compensation.

The suit is "Tyler v. Homebanc Mortgage, et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-60332-DTKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley with referral to James M. Hopkins.

INDIAN TRUST: High Court Rejects Appeal on Judge's Removal---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a ruling that removed U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth from the suit, "Cobell v. Kempthorne," Associated Press reports.

The court also refused to review another appeals court ruling that reversed Judge Lamberth's order for the Interior Department to disconnect its computers from the Internet for failing to provide adequate security for the Indians' trust records.

In July, the D.C. Circuit ordered the removal of the Judge Lamberth, finding that he had lost his objectivity. Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan subsequently assigned the case to Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Earlier this year, the plaintiffs rejected a new $7 billion settlement proposal from the U.S. government.

Case Background

Elouise Pepion Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet tribe in Montana, filed the class action on June 10, 1996 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

It seeks to force the federal government to account for billions of dollars belonging to approximately 500,000 American Indians and their heirs, and held in trust since 1887.

Specifically, the case involves royalties for farming, grazing, mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands. It dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans.

Back then, the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians and their survivors.

Through document discovery and courtroom testimony, the case has revealed mismanagement, ineptness, dishonesty and delay by federal officials, which lead a federal judge to declare their conduct "fiscal and governmental irresponsibility in its purest form."

As the case moved on, new revelations of false testimony, financial misconduct and bureaucratic retaliation continued to surface.

The purpose of the litigation is two-fold:

-- to force the government to account for the money, and

-- to bring about permanent reform of the system.

The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson.

INTERLOCK INDUSTRIES: Regulator Wants Part of $1.2M Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaii's Contractors Land Board is asking a Circuit Court judge for reimbursement from a settlement reached by Interlock Industries Inc. and homeowners, it emerged in a report by The Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Interlock and Mark Wenzel, owner of Interlock Industries, has agreed to pay $1.2 million in cash and to disburse some $15,000 to $17,000 a month for the next eight years to settle a class action filed by clients in Hawaii.

In 2001, the Hawaii Regulated Industries Complaints Office, which enforces professional licensing laws in this state, began investigating Interlock Industries after the company closed its Hawaii office shortly after 9/11.

A state order found that Interlock Industries and the Wenzels, who installed some 2,700 roofs in Hawaii from 1997 to 2001, failed "to maintain a record or history of competency, trustworthiness, fair dealing and financial integrity."

Consumers said Interlock left them with leaky roofs and useless lifetime warranties when it closed its Hawaii office. It also left them with bad credit and pursued liens on homes when some owners defaulted on high-interest, in-house financing deals.

In a 2005 hearing, the state Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs found Interlock and Mr. Wenzel, to have violated several state laws "by failing to maintain a record or history of competency, trustworthiness, fair dealing and financial integrity."

The state found that Interlock Industries, which installed approximately 2,700 roofs in Hawaii from 1997 to 2001, failed to report address and telephone number changes to the state contractors license board, engaged in unfair or deceptive acts, refused to complete work and failed to provide contracts to customers as well as obtain bonding for roofing projects.

It thus revoked their licenses. The state board that oversees contractors also fined Mr. Wenzel $205,000 and paid $25,000 from a state monetary pool to settle two consumer lawsuits. It has won court orders to collect money, but was unable to.

Subsequently, Kailua-based attorney Buck Ashford of Ashford & Associates filed a class action against Interlock. The suit, filed on behalf of a class of about 1,000 people, sought to prevent Interlock Industries from ever again contracting in Hawaii to install roofs with lifetime warranties without complying with state requirements.

Parties in the suit sought restitution as well as general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. Interlock and Mr. Wenzel agreed to pay $1.2 million in cash. A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for April 20.

The foundation represented three plaintiffs who worked at the dairy and more than 60 milkers and other workers who are part of the class action.

The workers alleged they were not paid overtime, despite working seven days straight, did not take meal breaks and lacked safety equipment.

The class consists of milkers, those who bring the cows to be milked, called pushers, who worked at the dairy between June 16, 2001, and March 1, 2006. Part-time and full-time, and current and former workers are eligible to avail of the settlement.

The money will be allocated based on how much time they worked at the dairy, said Virginia Villegas of Talamantes, Villegas and Carrera LLP, the San Francisco law firm overseeing the payments.

MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Recalled Pet Food----------------------------------------------------------The O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Menu Foods, Inc., reports say.

Filed on behalf of Reno resident, Marion Streczyn, the lawsuit claims the Canadian pet food manufacturer, waited too long before recalling more than 60 million containers of contaminated pet food.

Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts of the country.

The suit is "Streczyn v. Menu Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00159-LRH-VPC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Larry R. Hicks with referral to Judge Valerie P. Cooke.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the company and various current and former officers and directors are defendants in various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under the federal securities laws and state securities laws (the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits).

All of the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits pending in federal court have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R. Chesler for inclusion in a nationwide MDL.

Judge Chesler has consolidated the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits for all purposes. Plaintiffs request certification of a class of purchasers of company stock between May 21, 1999 and Oct. 29, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Vioxx in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and the costs of suit, including attorneys' fees. The complaint also asserts a claim under Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act against certain defendants relating to their sales of Merck stock.

In addition, the complaint includes allegations under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 that certain defendants made incomplete and misleading statements in a registration statement and certain prospectuses filed in connection with the Merck Stock Investment Plan, a dividend reinvestment plan.

Defendants hafiled a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In his April 12 ruling, Judge Chesler found that the securities action should be dismissed because all of the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations.

The suit is "Merck & Co. Inc. Securities Litigation In Re: MDL1658, Case No. 2:05-cv-02367-SRC-MF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler, with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

MOTOROLA INC: Faces Fla. Consumer Suit Over Razr Phone Batteries----------------------------------------------------------------Motorola Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that claims its Razr cell phones have defective white batteries, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

The complaint alleges Motorola knew that its so-called white batteries, named for their color, were "inherently flawed and defective," but never recalled them.

Instead, it tried to fix the problem by switching to black batteries and passing the "expense, hassle and frustration" of replacing the white batteries to consumers, the complaint states.

The complaint quotes online consumer reviews of customers complaining that the Razr battery "doesn't seem to be fully charged or doesn't hold a charge" and "dies after only 24 hours on standby."

Lead plaintiff, Miami-resident, Diego Romano claims he experienced the same problem with three Razr phones.

The complaint claims the white battery in the Razr cellular phones fail to perform as intended because is does not adequately maintain a charge, thereby violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breaching implied warranties, and causing plaintiff and proposed class members to incur loss of use and monetary damages.

The slim Razr was introduced in 2004 and is one of Motorola's most popular cell phones. The white batteries were used in phones such as the Motorazr and Motokrzr.

Mr. Romano brings this action individually and on behalf of all persons who since 2004:

MURPHY OIL: $60M Settlement Checks in Oil Spill Suit Sent Out-------------------------------------------------------------Murphy Oil Corp. has mailed $60 million in settlement checks, the first batch of payments from a $330 million settlement between the Murphy Oil Corp. and about 6,000 St. Bernard Parish homeowners for damages caused by an oil spill during Hurricane Katrina, The Associated Press reports.

A company spokesman said Murphy expects to send out another $60 million to affected property owners and renters in several biweekly mailings.

Case Background

The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux, Louisiana. Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006).

Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed the suit.

Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court certified the class on Jan. 30, 2006.

Settlement Terms

In October 2006, Judge Fallon gave preliminary approval to the proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2006).

Under the settlement, all residential and commercial properties in the class area will receive a cash payment pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to court approval following recommendations by a court-appointed Special Master.

The entire class area will have the benefit of a comprehensive remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities.

About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed liaison for the committee that would help disburse the settlement.

Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said.

Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business properties located on the first four streets west of the refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty Arpent Canal.

The settlement spells out four levels of compensation, depending on how bad the pollution was. Compensation ranges from $15,000 in damages to homes farthest from the spill's epicenter to buyouts of homes at a rate of $40 a square foot of living space, plus $19 a square foot in damages.

The settlement puts to rest the vast majority of lawsuits filed after a huge oil-storage tank at Murphy's flooded refinery near New Orleans floated off its foundation and broke in 2005, unleashing about 25,000 barrels of oil in the surrounding neighborhoods.

The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish.

In January, Judge Fallon approved the $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007). He also approved more than $36 million in attorney fees and costs to be paid by Murphy.

The settlement spells out four levels of compensation from a flat $15,000 for damages to homes farthest from the tank to buyouts of the closest houses: $40 per square foot (0.09 square meters) of living space, plus $19.25 per square foot in damages, plus $3,375 per occupant.

The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.

Under the terms of the settlement, Newpark will pay $1,550,000, and the company's directors and officers' liability insurance carrier will pay $8,300,000. Both amounts include the cost of certain legal fees and administration costs.

Between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting claims against Newpark for violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commision Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

All five complaints assert that James D. Cole, Newpark's former chief executive officer and Matthew W. Hardey, Newpark's former chief financial officer are liable for Newpark's violations as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The latter four lawsuits have been transferred to the judge presiding over the Kim Suit who has consolidated all five actions as "In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The complaints, asserting unspecified damages, allege that:

-- Newpark's April 17, 2006 press release concerning the internal investigation into potential irregularities in the processing and payment of invoices at one of its subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP;

-- establishes that Newpark misrepresented or omitted to disclose to the investing public irregularities in the processing and payment of invoices at Soloco and a lack of internal controls and flawed accounting practices and;

-- consequently, that Newpark did not prepare its consolidated financial statements according to generally accepted accounting principles.

As part of the settlement, the company is preserving certain claims it may have against its former CEO and CFO for matters arising from the potential invoicing irregularities at Soloco and the backdating of options. Newpark will accrue its share of the settlement costs, along with the legal fees incurred to conclude this settlement, in the first quarter of 2007.

Once approved, the settlements will resolve all class and derivative litigation against the company, its former and current directors, and former officers.

Paul Howes, Newpark's President and Chief Executive Officer, stated, "We are extremely pleased to have our shareholder litigation settled. This removes the uncertainty that is inherent in any litigation and allows us to focus 100% of our energy on increasing shareholder value here at Newpark."

The suit is "In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-02150-ML-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Marcel Livaudais with referral to Judge Karen Wells Roby.

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Mulls MDL-1604's Federal Preemption Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal against a federal preemption issue in a multi-district litigation over the servicing of mortgage loans by Ocwen Financial Corp. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ocwen Federal Bank FSB.

On April 13, 2004, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation granted the company's petition to transfer and consolidate a number of lawsuits against Ocwen Federal, Ocwen Financial and various third parties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the caption, "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604," (MDL Proceeding).

Currently, there are approximately 58 lawsuits consolidated in the MDL Proceeding involving 74 mortgage loans that the company currently or previously serviced. Additional similar lawsuits have been brought in other courts, some of which may be transferred to and consolidated in the MDL Proceeding.

The borrowers in many of these lawsuits seek class-action certification. Others have brought individual actions. No class has been certified in the MDL Proceeding or any related lawsuits.

While the amended consolidated complaint does not set forth any specific amounts of claimed damages, plaintiffs are not precluded from requesting leave of court to amend further the consolidated complaint or otherwise seeking damages should the matter proceed to trial.

On April 25, 2005, the court entered an opinion and order granting the Bank partial summary judgment finding that, as a matter of law, the mortgage loan contracts signed by plaintiffs authorize the imposition of breach letter fees and other legitimate default or foreclosure related expenses.

The court explained that it's ruling was in favor of defendants to the specific and limited extent that plaintiffs' claims challenge the propriety of the above-mentioned fees.

On May 16, 2006, after having denied defendants' motions to dismiss various portions of the consolidated complaint on federal preemption and procedural grounds, as well as the company's motion to dismiss Ocwen Financial from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court granted the company's motion to take an interlocutory appeal on the federal preemption issue.

On July 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit granted the company's request to hear its appeal on the federal preemption issue. The appeal on that issue is presently pending. The appeal on that issue is presently pending.

The company reported no development in the matter in its March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL-1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

PDI INC: Calif. Court Mulls Final Approval of Labor Suit Deal------------------------------------------------------------- PDI, Inc. has yet to report that the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco has granted final approval to a settlement of a labor-related class action filed against the company.

On Sept. 26, 2005, the company was served with a complaint in a purported class action that was commenced against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the company's current and former employees, alleging violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code.

During the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2005, the company accrued approximately $3.3 million for potential penalties and other settlement costs relating to both asserted and unasserted claims relating to this matter.

In October 2005, the company filed an answer generally denying the allegations set forth in the complaint. In December 2005, the company reached a tentative settlement of this action, subject to court approval.

As a result, the company reduced its accrual relating to asserted and unasserted claims relating to this matter to $600,000 during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2005. The balance of the accrual at Sept. 30, 2006 is $87,000.

In October 2006, the company received preliminary settlement approval from the court and the final approval hearing was held in January 2007, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

PDI INC: N.J. Court Denies Request to Amend Securities Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied plaintiffs' request to amend a third complaint in a securities fraud class action against the PDI, Inc., its former chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer.

In January and February 2002, three complaints that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.

On May 23, 2002, the court consolidated all three lawsuits into a single action as, "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File No. 02-CV-0211," and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel.

On or about Dec. 13, 2002, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended complaint, which superseded their earlier complaints.

In February 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated and amended complaint. On or about Aug. 22, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the second consolidated and amended complaint without prejudice to plaintiffs.

On Oct. 21, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a third consolidated and amended complaint. Like its predecessor, the third consolidated and amended complaint:

-- names the company, its former chief executive officer and its chief financial officer as defendants;

-- purports to state claims against the company on behalf of all persons who purchased its common stock between May 22, 2001 and Aug. 12, 2002; and

The essence of the allegations in the third consolidated and amended complaint is that the company intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading public statements and omissions concerning the company's financial condition and prospects with respect to it's marketing of Ceftin in connection with:

-- an October 2000 distribution agreement with GlaxoSmithKline;

-- the company's marketing of Lotensin in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis; as well as

-- its marketing of Evista in connection with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli Lilly and company.

On Dec. 21, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated and amended complaint under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On Feb. 24, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition of the motion to dismiss the third consolidated and amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).

On Nov. 2, 2006, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing with prejudice all claims asserted in the third consolidated and amended complaint against all defendants and denied lead plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Mater File No. 02- CV-0211," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Jersey, under Judge Jose L. Linares, with referral to Judge Ronald Hedges.

PNC FINANCIAL: Penn. Court Approves $9.075M Settlement by E&Y-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania approved a $9,075,000 settlement by Ernst & Young LLP of claims it faces in the suit, "In Re PNC Financial Services Group,Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC."

Deadline for submission of proof of claims is May 11.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. common stock, who purchased call options on PNC common stock, or who wrote (sold) put options on PNC common stock, from July 19, 2001 through July 18, 2002 inclusive, and the PNC Incentive Savings Plan on behalf of itself and its present and former participants and beneficiaries who purchased or otherwise acquired PNC common stock during the Class Period through the PNC Incentive Savings Plan.

Case Background

Beginning on Feb. 1, 2002, 12 putative class actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the court and were subsequently consolidated under the above caption, and are hereinafter referred to as the "In Re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The second consolidated and amended complaint dated March 31, 2005 alleges that the defendants misled investors by intentionally overstating PNC's profits and the amounts that the company expected to earn in the future.

It further alleges that E&Y participated in PNC's scheme to defraud by rendering advice to PNC in connection with the structuring of and accounting for three transactions with special purpose entities sponsored by American International Group, Inc. and/or its affiliates.

In 2004, lead plaintiffs, the defendants, AIG Financial Products Corp., Arnold & Porter LLP, and Buchanan Ingersoll PC began negotiating a settlement of all claims or potential claims against those defendants and third-party entities that ultimately resulted in the creation of a $36.6 million settlement fund.

Lead Plaintiffs proceeded with their claims against E&Y. E&Y had previously filed a motion to dismiss an earlier complaint, and its motion was pending at the time the PNC Settlement was reached. E&Y objected to certain aspects of the PNC Settlement.

Ultimately, on July 13, 2006, the court approved the PNC settlement over E&Y's objections. E&Y appealed from the court's July 13, 2006 order approving the PNC Settlement.

The E&Y Settlement was reached in the course of mediating E&Y's appeal.

The suit is "In Re PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-00271-DSC," filed in the U.S.District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania underJudge David S. Cercone.

PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Consolidation of Securities Suits-------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion to consolidate several securities fraud class actions filed against PXRE Group, Ltd.

Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company; Jeffrey Radke, the company's chief executive officer; and John Modin, the company's former chief financial officer.

Those suits were brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of PXRE between July 28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006.

Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical claims and alleges that during the purported class period certain PXRE executives made a series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions about PXRE's business, prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to purchase PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934 Act.

The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts:

-- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma;

-- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and

-- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from A.M. Best.

Further, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted facts, that PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates for the 2005 hurricane season lacked any reasonable basis. The class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.

A motion to consolidate all of the class actions into a single proceeding is currently pending before the court.

The company reported no development in the matter in its March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The first identified complaint is "Stephen Goldberger, et al. v. PXRE Group Limited, et al., Case No. 06-CV-3410," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.J. Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has yet to issue a ruling with regards to an appeal in a purported class action, "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation."

The original class action complaints were filed in December 2002, and January 2003, against Bio-Technology General Corp., now known as Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

They were brought on behalf of investors who had purchased shares of Bio-Technology General during an alleged Class Period of April 19, 1999 through Aug. 2, 2002.

The complaints alleged that these investors had been defrauded because, on Sept. 25, 2002, the company filed restated year-end and quarterly reports of its earnings and related financial statements for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, which the company had previously announced would be forthcoming in its Form 8-K and accompanying press release issued Aug. 2, 2002.

On Aug. 10, 2005, the court granted, without prejudice, Savient Pharmaceuticals' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead their complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, again seeking unspecified compensatory damages, purporting to set forth particularized facts to support their allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the company and its former officers.

On Dec. 13, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Oct. 26, 2006, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the second amended complaint.

The district court declined to allow plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which is currently pending, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In re Bio-Technology General Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-6048," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Harold A. Ackerman.

SECURE COMPUTING: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Calif.-------------------------------------------------------------Secure Computing Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 19, Rosenbaum Capital, LLC, filed a putative securities class action complaint against the company and certain directors and officers of the company.

The alleged plaintiff class includes persons who acquired the company's stock between May 4, 2006 through July 11, 2006.

The complaint alleges generally that defendants made false and misleading statements about the business condition and prospects for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COS: Faces Right-of-Way Lawsuit in Mass.-----------------------------------------------------------Waltham (Massachusetts) attorney Catherine Colinvaux, on behalf of North Chelmsford couple Richard and Corey Kingsborough, filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against several telecommunications companies, The Sun reports.

The lawsuit claims the defendants illegally ran fiber-optic cables under railroad rights of way without getting approval from neighboring landowners.

Plaintiffs allege defendants illegally ran the cables to install a nationwide fiber-optic network in a way to achieve both lower costs and extra speed in installing their systems.

Under the law, the railroads were granted easements, sometimes forced by the eminent-domain laws, across private property to install train tracks. But the lawsuit states the companies named in this lawsuit had no legal right to allow the rights of way for commercial telecommunications purposes with consent from and compensation to the owners of the land adjacent to the rights of way.

As a result of this unlawful use of the land, the companies in the lawsuit have earned millions of dollars from rents, profits and other benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The suit is "Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10651-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.

TXU ELECTRIC: Faces Texas Suit Over "Deceptive" Trade Practices---------------------------------------------------------------The Rankin Law Firm and the Law Office of David Guillory, a Nacogdoches (Texas) lawyer filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against TXU Electric Delivery Co., over alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and breach of contractual agreements with customers, The Lufkin Daily News reports.

The suit accuses the energy provider of installing electronic meters that "inflated and inaccurately" calculated energy usage for a number of Angelina County customers.

The suit is seeking injunctive relief to prevent TXU Delivery from "altering, removing, converting or otherwise modifying or tampering with the instruments in question."

It also requests the electric provider stop billing practices until an audit of the meters can be conducted at the company's expense.

VENMAR VENTILATION INC: Recalls Ventilators Due to Fire Hazard--------------------------=------------------------------------Venmar Ventilation Inc., of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 75,000 units of Heat Recovery Ventilators.

The company said the motors in these units can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

Venmar Ventilation has received four reports of ventilator motors overheating resulting in fires causing extensive property damage. One incident in Michigan reportedly resulted in about $1 million in damages.

Heat Recovery Ventilators are designed to exchange air between the inside and outside of a home in order to provide fresh air. The recall covers units made from 1991 through 2001, and have the following brand names and model numbers:

The model numbers are written on a silver or black label on the outside of panel. The "X" digit used in the model numbers can be either a letter or a number.

These recalled Heat Recovery ventilators were manufactured in Canada and are being sold by heating, plumbing and building supply distributors nationwide from January 1991 through December 2001 for between $700 and $2,500.

Consumers are advised to immediately turn off and unplug their ventilators, and contact Venmar to receive instructions on how to participate in the recall. Venmar will provide a free safety device that will shut off the ventilator if the motor overheats.

WAL-MART STORES: Faces Labor Law Violations Lawsuit in W.Va.------------------------------------------------------------ Three former employees at Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s South Charleston store filed a class action in the U.S. District Court at Charleston on April 3, claiming the store did not appropriately compensate them for time worked, The West Virginia Record reports.

The plaintiffs sought to represent every Wal-Mart employee in West Virginia who suffered a similar fate since 1989. The suit was filed by Charleston attorney Troy Giatras on behalf of Pam Brogan, Jane Markins and Francis Gail Patterson, former employees at Wal-Mart in South Charleston.

The suit claims Wal-Mart routinely asks employees to complete assignments without recording hours worked and that Wal-Mart altered records to make it appear employees took full meal breaks when they worked part of the time.

It also claims Wal-Mart deleted hours over 40 and shaved time through other unlawful means, according to the report. The suit seeks damages for conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of good faith and fair dealing. It also claims violations of West Virginia wage laws.

The suit is "Brogan, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00214," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Joseph R. Goodwin.

WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Seal Documents in "Savaglio"---------------------------------------------------------- A 1st District panel reversed an order granting a motion by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to seal records related to a labor class action against the company, The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sabraw had sealed the documents. In August 2004, The Berkeley Daily Planet and its counsel Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld filed a motion to unseal the labor document to inspect and copy the papers Wal-Mart had filed in connection with its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification and in support of its summary adjudication motion.

The judge denied the motion on the reason that the filings at the Court of Appeal would be under seal because filings in the trial court were conditionally under seal. Wal-Mart moved to permanently seal documents.

Div. Four denied Wal-Mart's motion finding that it has waived its right to have the documents sealed because, by the time it brought its motion, it had already publicly filed the documents in the Court of Appeal.

The case is "Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." Plaintiffs in the class action allege that they were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with California law, and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages concluded on Dec. 22, 2005. The jury returned a verdict of approximately $57 million in statutory penalties and $115 million in punitive damages.

Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately $26 million in costs and attorneys' fees. The company filed a notice of appeal on Jan. 31.

ZIX CORP: Discovery Begins in Tex. Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------Discovery has begun in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Zix Corp., and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Beginning in early September 2004, several purported shareholder class actions were filed against the company in Texas federal court.

The purported class actions seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between Oct. 30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

The suits alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act during this time period. These class actions were later consolidated into one case.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuits pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and also pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court denied the motion in September 2006.

The consolidated class action is proceeding in due course, and is in the early phase of the discovery process, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Brody, et al. v. Zix Corp., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01931," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

CHECKFREE CORP: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Lawsuit in Ga.---------------------------------------------------------------Chitwood Harley Harnes filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of CheckFree Corp. during the period April 4, 2006 through Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive.

The defendants are CheckFree, Peter J. Kight, who at all relevant times was Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the company, and David Mangum, who at all relevant times was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the company.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants misled investors by issuing false and misleading statements about CheckFree's operations and financial condition and as a result, the price of CheckFree securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 4, 2006, an analyst indicated that CheckFree projected a 25% annual transaction growth for the foreseeable future, which led to an 8% increase in the price of CheckFree stock by the end of that day.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants continued to make false and misleading statements about CheckFree's Electronic Commerce and Payment Services businesses in press releases, analyst reports and conference calls. The truth began to emerge in an Aug. 1, 2006, conference call when CheckFree admitted that its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, were lower than previously expected.

After the market learned of the disappointing results, shares of CheckFree plunged $5.93, or 13%, the next day on a volume of 17.3 million shares, the highest daily volume in the more than 10 years that the company has been publicly traded.

Interested parties may move the court no later than June 11, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

WORLDSPACE INC: Zwerling Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of World Space, Inc. issued in connection with, or traceable to, the initial public offering of World Space shares (the IPO).

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading representations in the company's Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the sale of World Space common stock in the IPO.

Further, the Complaint alleges that the offering price was inflated because Defendants failed to disclose that subscribers who had purchased a three-month, pre-paid subscription to World Space pursuant to a promotional offer, but who declined to continue or to pay for a subscription following the end of the promotional period, were not timely removed from the company's publicly stated subscriber count. Defendants continued to include these expired subscriptions in the company's subscriber count for an additional ninety days following the expiration of the initial three-month promotional period.

On March 16, 2006, however, World Space revealed that subscribers were not immediately removed from its subscription count when a customer failed to renew its subscription.

This news caused WorldSpace's common stock to decline substantially the next day, March 17, 2006, by $2.63 per share, a more than 22% drop from the previous day's closing price of $11.52 per share.

Interested parties may move the court no later than May 15, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.